apibase

Search Open Context Archaeological Records

opencontext.archaeology.search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Full-text search across Open Context 200,000+ published archaeological records, including excavated objects (pottery, tools, bones, coins), site contexts (trenches, rooms, floors), media (photographs, 3D models, drawings), and field documents. Returns paginated list of matching items with label, URI, excavation project, geographic context (site → region hierarchy), latitude/longitude, date range (BCE/CE), item category, and a text snippet. Filter by item type (subjects/media/documents) or search all at once. Data is CC BY 4.0 from 220+ published excavation projects worldwide, maintained by the Alexandria Archive Institute. Response includes items per page and start offset for pagination.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rows`	No	Number of results to return per page (1–50, default 10).
`query`	Yes	Full-text search query for archaeological items (e.g. "Roman pottery", "Bronze Age burial", "Petra temple", "obsidian flake"). Searches labels, descriptions, and project metadata across 200K+ records.
`start`	No	Zero-based pagination offset. Use with rows to page through results (e.g. start=10, rows=10 to get the second page).
`item_type`	No	Filter by item category. "subjects" for excavated objects and contexts (default); "media" for images, 3D models, and videos; "documents" for field notes and reports; "all" to search across all types.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No	Present only when the call failed. Includes error code, message, request_id, and any provider-specific extras.
`result`	No	Tool response payload. Shape varies per tool — consult the tool description and inputSchema. May be an object, array, string, or number depending on the upstream provider response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which are fully consistent with the description. The description adds valuable context about licensing (CC BY 4.0), the scale of data (200K+ records), and the response structure (pagination with items per page and start offset), which goes beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense paragraph that covers all key aspects without being overly verbose. It front-loads the purpose and includes specific details about data scope, filtering, and return fields. While it could be split into bullet points, the current structure is efficient and every sentence contributes useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is complete for a search tool: it specifies query parameters, filtering options, return fields, pagination, licensing, and source. Even though an output schema exists, the description proactively explains the return structure and data provenance, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds extra value by providing concrete query examples, clarifying the default item_type, and explaining pagination semantics (start/rows) in prose. This exceeds the baseline for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb (search) and resource (Open Context archaeological records), enumerates the content types covered (objects, site contexts, media, field documents), and implicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools like opencontext.archaeology.detail, facets, and projects by focusing on full-text search with pagination and filtering.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what the tool does and how to filter (item_type), but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (detail, facets, projects). An agent must infer from context that this is the search endpoint, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All apibase tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.